[balfirevic]

> Once you have enough money to have a great quality of life without stress, having more money isn't improving much your happiness.

If you mean without having to continue working, that is indeed what many would consider being rich.

[marcinzm]

That depends on your personality and the job. Although, as I've noticed, seeking money as the number one goal tends to lead to jobs which cause more stress and a lower quality of life. For example, I could make more money at top tech company but then I'd have bureaucracy and a vacation policy (I took 6 weeks last year) to deal with.

[lonelappde]

Top tech company offers 5 weeks vacation per year and offers unpaid leave too. The hard part is extricating yourself from (fake-) important projects long enough to enjoy a vacation.

[marcinzm]

Depends on the company, Google I believe begins at 15 days and you only get more after a certain tenure.

[speedgoose]

No, a normal job is enough to be happy in most societies in my humble opinion.

[varjag]

You can lose a job, and it can play out pretty bad. That's a persistent background dread in most people lives.

[speedgoose]

You have unemployment and more than enough time to find a new job. And let's say you don't find one, the state will still give you enough money for you to survive. Maybe you will have to reduce your lifestyle and be unhappy for some time but there is no need to seek to be rich just to prevent an unlikely future.

[johnr2]

> You have unemployment and more than enough time to find a new job. And let's say you don't find one, the state will still give you enough money for you to survive.

Quite a few commenters on this forum live in parts of the world where that is not the case. It's certainly not the case for the majority of the world's population.

[varjag]

I sense an optimism of someone who yet not lived through a major recession. When the economy takes a nosedive, even janitor jobs can be hard to come by.

And welfare, even where it is available, is usually severely capped both in amount and duration. You may not die of hunger but losing your place to live is entirely realistic.

[speedgoose]

It's true, I haven't experienced a recession. I rather take the risk of having a hard time during a recession than having a hard time my whole life though.

[torgian]

Yeah uhhh... having lived in below poverty level, Fuck that noise. I’m a us citizen so if I lose my job I’m pretty much fucked either way.

[j7ake]

Which societies are in a situation where a normal job supports a spouse, children, and aging parents?

Most people want to be in a financial situation where they can support more than just themselves.

[speedgoose]

The spouse can work, we are not in the 1960s anymore. But even if she does not work, you can have a happy life in many Europeans countries.

[j7ake]

This suggests that the cost of living adjusted salaries of today is half of what they were in 1960s if two people need to work now versus when only one needed to.

Also immigrating to a country with good social benefits does not solve the need to take care of elders and relatives , which would not benefit from the social system of the country to which you would immigrate

[burntoutfire]

> This suggests that the cost of living adjusted salaries of today is half of what they were in 1960s if two people need to work now versus when only one needed to.

It's that, or people's "needs" (wants really) just got inflated over time.